Sport diplomacy during the apartheid era in South Africa with the Olympic Movement in the centre of web: Three sport political approaches of the IOC Presidents Brundage, Lord Killanin and Samaranch towards the apartheid politics in South Africa Tim Sperber Olympic Studies Centre, German Sport University Cologne (Germany) Abstract This research was conducted as part of a master’s degree thesis at the German Sport University in Cologne aiming to uncover sport diplomacy during the era of apartheid in South Africa with the Olympic Movement in the centre of web. A historical research was carried out to analyse various relations and their influence on the decision makers of the Olympic Movement from the early 1960s until the reintegration to the Olympic Summer Games 1992 in Barcelona. Focusing on the three International Olympic Committee (IOC) Presidents Brundage, Lord Killanin and Samaranch, one can clearly examine different approaches towards sport politics. While Brundage was rather successful in separating sport and politics, Lord Killanin did not have choice to cope with the emerging influence of international actors. Samaranch clearly used the political framework of the United Nations (UN) for his means and implemented the IOC Commission Apartheid and Olympism, which was the first step of a sporting reintegration of South Africa. Keywords Olympism, Apartheid, South Africa, Sport Politics, Sport Diplomacy, IOC Presidents. Sperber, T. (2020). Sport diplomacy during the apartheid era in South Africa with the Olympic Movement in the centre of web: Three sport political approaches of the IOC Presidents Brundage, Lord Killanin and Samaranch towards the apartheid politics in South Africa . Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies, 4, 276–297. Retrieved from http://diagorasjournal.com/index. php/diagoras/article/view/102 276 Introduction and Purpose In modern times the Olympic Movement has become the institution for sport around the world by organizing the Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games every four years. For this reason, sport and especially mega-sport events have been the playground for various political power games and diplomatic actions. So, did for example the National Socialists in 1936 instrumentalize the Olympic Games to show strength after World War I or a Palestinian group hijacked Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games to make aware of a crisis in the Middle East (Johns, 2014). Sport has been of growing interest especially after World War II, respectively during the Cold War, when international relations as a consequence of the decolonialization process became more complex. The accelerating political, cultural, social, economic and diplomatic significance of sport led into the two big boycotts during the cold war in 1980 and 1984 between the western and the eastern affiliated states (Murray, 2018). Within these times another long and profound conflict was on the international agenda - the issue of legal racial segregation in the Republic of South Africa: Apartheid. After 1945 and the end of World War II, a white minority claimed power in Southern Africa and suppressed the Black and Indian community (Krumpholz, 1991; Schlosshan, 1992). This caught the attention of various stakeholders, who wanted to pressure the South African government stopping racial segregation (Booth, 2003). According to the Olympic Charter, the IOC prohibited South African athletes to participate at the Olympic Games between 1964 and 1992. The whole issue on South Africa caused a lot of tension within the sporting environment and especially the Olympic Movement. A historical approach aims to help understand people, societies, behaviours and developments. Learning from the past is essential to understand the present and create the future (Stearns, 1998). Stakeholders, their relations and methods can be examined by bringing letters from the Olympic Archive of that time into a chronological order and linking them in order to illustrate a holistic picture of the time. 277 © 2020 Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies, 4, 276-297. ISSN: 2565-196X Diplomacy within the Olympic Movement In addition to the historical approach, the ideas of Olympism as Diplomacy and Olympic Diplomacy serve as a sport political framework. Olympic Diplomacy understands the Olympic Movement as the central object of investigation and can be classified as Multi-Stakeholder Diplomacy. It incorporates commercial, governmental and civil society organisations at all levels. It describes the lobby work of various actors with a shared interest engaging and keeping the diplomatic process in mind. This is mainly associated with activities around Olympic Games, especially when aiming for or securing a successful bid for the Games (Beacom, 2012). Olympism as Diplomacy in contrast clearly states that the Olympic Games can be considered as a diplomatic occasion itself, nonetheless it points out that the IOC promotes various soft power tools continuously (Beacom, 2012). Diplomacy through the Olympics, are, according to Beacom, diplomatic actions of states and agents during the Games to pursue specific organisational goals. The sport event then has become the playground of diplomacy but with the IOC in the centre of web, the Olympic Movement can act as mediating force between collectives and claim it as Diplomacy of the Olympics (Beacom, 2012; Der Derian, 1987). Diplomacy of the Olympics is carried out continuously by various agents beside the IOC, which include International Federations (IF) as well as the regional, national and continental Olympic Committees. Wide-spread known activities of Coubertin’s idea of Olympism are Olympic Solidarity and Olympic education programmes both aiming a mutual understanding for others and peace building (Beacom, 2012; Müller, 2000). Sport diplomacy during the apartheid era When analysing the diplomacy in the sporting environment during the apartheid era, one can note that especially rugby and cricket have been from researchers’ interest. Already during the apartheid analysed Lapchick South Africa’s Use of Sport in its Foreign Policy (Lapchick, 1977). He points out the importance of sport in South Africa’s foreign relations at the time and gives an overview of the happenings until the publication of his paper in 1977. Since it has been still an ongoing debate, the sources refer primarily to newspaper articles of the time and official © 2020 Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies, 4, 276-297. ISSN: 2565-196X 278 publications. Kidd follows the same approach and expanded the literature until 1988. Remarkably, when describing the Campaign against Sport in South Africa, the importance of the IOC, the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) as well as of the UN are already acknowledged (Kidd, 1988). In another study describes Kidd (1991) the last two years of the campaign against apartheid and examined recent developments in South African sport, its organisations and policies just before the reintegration into the Olympic Movement. Weisbrod illustrates handlings of the Olympic Movement in the centre of pro- and anti-apartheid initiatives but assumes that the critical dispute ends with the expulsion of South Africa from the Olympic Movement in 1970 (Weisbord, 2015). The fact that Olympic Games can serve as a playground for the causa South Africa even though they are not competing is explained by Downes. It is elaborated when analysing sport as a diplomatic tool by African and Caribbean countries to support their arguments within the Commonwealth (Downes, 2014). Cornelissen links the diverse external powers to the IOC when uncovering the cooperating network of African, “Third World Countries” and “Second World (Communist) Countries”(Cornelissen, 2012). She points out collective actions of various initiatives within the Olympic movement during the Cold War and indicates the social protest, ideologies and race which led to the transnational campaign against the readoption of South Africa in the Olympic Movement from a sociological point of view. Given this orientation, Nauright takes the social structures and cultures into consideration to assess the impact of sporting sanctions on the South African society and states that especially the white South African population suffered from the sporting exclusion. However, the question remains unsolved whether sporting exclusion solely would have been enough to end apartheid (Nauright, 2010). While claiming that the influence of sport diplomacy can be hardly measured, Keech and Houlihan elaborated indicators to investigate the influence of the sporting opposition in different international organizations. Even though they concluded that sport had a symbolic function and was able to influence other policy actors, sport had been far less significant to end apartheid than assumed (Keech & Houlihan, 1999). A holistic historical approach of the Olympic Movement, the IOC and its Presidents Brundage, Lord Killanin and Samaranch is lacking in the field of Olympic Studies. Subsequently minutes of IOC Executive Board meetings, IOC Sessions and personal 279 © 2020 Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies, 4, 276-297. ISSN: 2565-196X letters from the IOC Archives at the Olympic Studies Centre Lausanne are combined to uncover the sports diplomatic actions within the Olympic Movement during the constitutionalized era of apartheid. Avery Brundage, IOC President between 1952 and 1972 The American Avery Brundage was the first IOC President facing